What happens when you stack 33 allegations and skip performance management
The University of Melbourne fired a professor with 27.5 years of service for serious misconduct. The Fair Work Commission ordered her back on February 23, 2026.
Dr Angela Paladino had been employed by the University since July 1997, advancing through academic ranks to tenured Professor and Director of the Williams Centre for Learning Advancement (WCLA). She was also elected by her peers to Vice-President of the University's Academic Board, a role she held immediately before her dismissal. At the time her employment ended on February 5, 2025, she was earning $330,669 a year.
The University's case rested on 33 separate allegations spanning several years, covering conduct described as rude, micromanaging, dishonest, divisive, insubordinate and bullying. The argument was that while any individual incident may have been minor, the pattern as a whole amounted to serious misconduct. Three staff members made formal complaints, an external investigator was commissioned, and an independent review was conducted before the University ultimately terminated Dr Paladino's employment.
That independent reviewer found "none of the conduct considered in isolation was likely to be considered serious misconduct," but concluded it was open to the University to find that the totality did. The University pressed ahead.
Deputy President Masson of the Fair Work Commission, handing down his decision on February 23, 2026, found that difficult to sustain. Examining all 33 allegations in detail, the Commission found the vast majority were not established. Witnesses called by the University fared poorly under scrutiny. One was found to have made false statements and harboured antipathy toward Dr Paladino. Another was found to hold a negative and vindictive view of her. A third was found to perceive Dr Paladino's conduct in a negative light, whether justified or not.
What remained, a handful of partially or fully sustained allegations, was not enough. The dismissal was found to be harsh, unjust and unreasonable. The Commission found harshness evident having regard to Dr Paladino's long service record and the University's failure to formally address leadership concerns before resorting to dismissal.
For all the allegations raised, some dating back years, there was no evidence the University had formally warned or counselled Dr Paladino about her leadership before proceeding to dismissal. Her supervisor acknowledged holding concerns over her leadership over a period of time but had not raised those concerns with her. The Commission's language on this was notably direct, characterising that failure to act — in circumstances where the supervisor's evidence was now laced with criticism of Dr Paladino — as smacking of managerial cowardice.
Reinstatement was ordered within 28 days of the February 23, 2026 decision. Dr Paladino returns as tenured Professor and Director of the WCLA, with continuity of employment maintained. Reinstatement to her Vice-Presidential position on the University's Academic Board was not ordered, as that vacancy had already been filled. No payment for lost income was made, with the Commission noting she had received six months' pay in lieu of notice and had made no demonstrable efforts to find alternative employment.
What this means in practice for HR and people leaders: stacking complaints does not build a serious misconduct case on its own. Where individual allegations are too minor to stand alone, the quality of evidence matters as much as the quantity. Formal performance management is not a box-ticking exercise; the absence of documented warnings or coaching before dismissing a long-tenured senior employee will weigh heavily against the employer. Witness credibility deserves the same rigour as the allegations themselves. The Commission examined witness motivations closely and found them wanting. HR practitioners would do well to apply the same scrutiny before an investigation advances to termination.
